Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (64664)	2/5/2001 11:23:59 AM
From: chic_hearne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

CB, the irony of the situation is that it's California's mess, but their citizens aren't paying for their stupidity, everyone else is. They have price caps, so the Util's can't collect more money. The federal government steps in and orders the power suppliers to not cut off the Cali Ute's even though they know they will never get paid back. So who can they collect from? Well, other states where there aren't rigorous price controls, like my state thousands of miles away from Cali. Oh yeah, my $450 gas bill I just got pissed me off a little. Anyone that thinks this is not going to effect the economy is living in la la land.

To: Ilaine who wrote (64664)	2/5/2001 11:50:21 AM
From: GraceZ	Respond to of 436258

I can attest to this. At my studio I usually get a $200/month BG&E bill in the winter (higher in the summer for air conditioning). I got a $300 bill in December, but January was $465 and I keep the heat as low as I can set it on the thermostat, largely because my photographic machines keep whatever room you are working in warm. It was the gas portion that was going nuts. Back when we heated the place with oil was the last time I saw a heating bill that high. Of course, we switched the house over to NG when everyone else did. -ng-

To: Ilaine who wrote (64664)	2/5/2001 11:54:39 AM
From: Archie Meeties	Respond to of 436258

There's a running argument on the SD board as to whether or not the e&p's have peaked. The bear case is that a;the commodity has peaked b;industrial demand for ng is retreating rapidly c; q to q comparisons will be negative in 2001. The bull side is a; the stocks are pricing in $4 ng b; industrial demand can go to zero and there still will be a supply problem in winter 01-02 c; q to q comparisons will not be negative in 2001 b/c the avg ng price will be higher than 2000. A look at the XNG shows that the market, like the board, is in a state of indecision. The March-April period is traditionally strong for this sector. An early move would be bullish, as those waiting for the traditional period get left behind and scramble to catch up, whereas more grinding throughout the Spring would be decidedly bearish. I favor the former, although I'm only about 20% energy at the moment and mostly the service co's. The e&p's will be taking the drilling costs up the ss soon, especially those drilling on land in the US. The Bush folk will be bend over backwards friendly to the energy industry - the traditional industry, not* the alternative one. I suspect we'll see tax cuts, expansion of drilling lands, and most importantly, no market intervention. They've already demonstrated a reluctance to intervene in electricity prices. All, of course, in the name of free markets. I think the quote was something like 'We don't wish to intervene because there is a supply problem and if we intervene we might lessen the demand for new electricity generation.' Or some such obfuscation.